I am actually new to this forum. I have only recently 'discovered' it, so to speak.

There seems to be a lot of good suggestions and advice that emulates from here.

As such I though that I might seak some opinions on my take on the torn and restored card effect.

I know that in many ways it has been done to death. I hope that amongst all the people trying to come up with new ways to do the same thing, usually in a way that spectatores don't know the difference, I am able to do something to actually add to the effect.

I feel so unsatisfied. As a fan of the Hollingsworth version, I never take much of a look at other versions. I checked it out and it looked GOOD, then I clicked on the My Stuff link, and found to my disapointment your little note on not selling it. Good for you, that is a real nice piece you have there, protect it as long as you can.

Well, thank you all very much. As I had had said I am open to any and all suggestions about this effect, and if you wish to comment on the other effects there, please do so as advice is what we are here for.

The actual restorations look nice, particularly the final one (though from what I can tell from the video, it seems fairly angley). My main gripe with the effect is the fact that all the restorations happen with the back of the card facing the audience. Although the card is shown at the beginning and end, during the restoration process there is no "proof" that the card being restored is the same signed selection. You're hiding all of the positive identification (the signature, the card's value, etc.). To me, at least, that weakens the effect.

If the audience is TOO close they would have a bettr chance of 'spotting' something if the face as forward. But it would be the same handeling.

I have recently worked out a new and more convincing handling which allows for a very open display of four, single layered(re: no folded pieces) pieces that can be counted, aswell as the ability to hold the card by each piece after it has been restored. (as to show that they are actually atavhed and not just held there by your finger.)

I realize going "out of frame" is the same as lapping... but WHAT IS NEEDED for walkaround is a CLEAN stand up version. No lapping, no dupe signatures... you don't have time when working a room full of people in small groups.

Pete, I stand by JC Wagner's T&R card. It probably started everyone off (searching for the complete restoration), so there is an obvious weakness. However, you can do it virtually surrounded and the reset is minimal. Any card can be chosen. Moreover, everything can be done at the fingertips, and the card is virtually 'face towards the audience' for most of the routine. In my book, the pluses far outweigh the minuses. However, others may disagree.

Complete seamless restorations just scream that you switched the cards. You are adding angle problems. A card has to be forced. A signature has to be duplicated. You are adding more moving parts. More things to go wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I am sure this is a great effect under the "right" circumstances. The problem is that those circumstances occur only a very small proportion of the time.

Actually this effect is performable under all the same circumstance as almost all other T&Rs. I have actually done this surrounded. I know that sound obsurd, but it is only the last piece that has any angle sensitivity and that is easily taken care of through misdirection and audience management, as are many other aspects of many other effects.

As for the sig Duping it is very easy and also not neccisary.

It is also easy to do this impromtu.

I have been told that it is one of the acceptions with angles in T&Rs as it has far less problems then most as there is no need to be unfolding the card to perform the restorations.

I like the Wagner version of Paul Harris' "The Ultimate Ripoff" and suggested it as an alternative to the Harris handling when I published my notes on the effect and my script in Tubthumping.

Both are great handings for walk around performance. Both require a reason for not restoring the last piece, and in Wagner's version a way to ditch the extra stuff... That's my contribution.

I maintain that Harris' routine is the best T&R effect around for general use and should be learned by everyone because it's just a strong with someone's borrowed business card, or an index card at the office, or a take out lunch menu or...

For all you nay sayers here, let me tell you that I have seen Glenn do this stand up, and almost surrounded. All while fooling a group of magicians. This effect is the closest thing to magic I have ever seen.

I purchased this awhile back when it was available from Glenn...I'm glad that he stopped selling it.

His method of getting around the signature is very nice, and the whole routine flows very smoothly. It does make sense, not creasing the cards before the tear, which is why the routine has a very nice hands off feel to is.

It looks very good, and the laymen like it. That's what matters to me.

I thought that might be him. I didn't want to say anythng just yet though.

Let us get back on topic now.

Is there any one actually having trouble with spywear and the like with my site?

If so please feel free to let me know and I will do what I can to fix it.

ThanksGlenn

P.S.I imagine that this last section will be removed, and rightfully so, as we do not need it on these forums. I missed the last comments made by 'Doc Green.' I wouldn't mind being filled in as to what was said as I am documenting any such libel and slander just incase.

"Tripod's new ad tricks are driving Norton Anti Virus nuts! Tripod has introduced, on their free-hosted website pages, a new way to get their ads "in your face" & NAV is "detecting" it as a "Trojan dropper". It's annoying, it's messing with browser settings, but it's NOT a malicious Trojan so NAV should NOT be scaring you! What Tripod is doing is changing your browser's "View" setting to open the "channel" frame on the left & then filling it with Tripod advertising links, here's a screenshot of a Tripod page. It clearly says "Tripod" BUT it won't go away until you close the channel frame in your browser. It's advertising, it's annoying, but it's harmless. It's also an excellent opportunity for NAV to scare you so that you'll happily spend some more money on updates!"

I did an extensive search and it does not appear that Tripod puts adware or spyware on a viewer's computer, Glenn. :)

I was worried there for a bit. I didn't want to adding to the problems with vrius'.

I might be moving my site around to a place with less popups though.

Although, depending, I might just forget about the site all together.

I took my products off the market a few months ago and I don't think I'll be doing much new untill I get the DVD going. (The DVD is mostly for fun, I enjoy media arts and film production)

I've also been shifting more of my focus on my art since I moved home.

It's been fun working on drawings for manuscripts and what not.I've been reworking Seamless' manuscript for the benifit of those who already own it. Might be a while still as I'm drawing all the photos now for clarity.

I'm enjoying it though. This is also probably pretty uniteresting to you guys. I ten to ramble.

What I dont understand is...If Seamless is not for sale then why bother soliciting comments on it? Why defend or the superiority of the method? Since the "method" is not for sale, what difference does it make if it is "less angley" or the dupe signature is clean and quick. You sound like you're trying to sell a product that's not even for sale. Sheesh!

Spirit, whether marketing an effect or not, can we not help one another with our collective experience? A critique of any effect is quite helpful, most especially critiques provided by knowledgable and objective minds. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to ask people like Bill Duncan or Pete Biro if they might be so kind as to give their opinions, additions, or corrections. Please don't feel that improving one's magic is necessarily bound by commerce. Seamless looks pretty good to me, though the 'out of frame' thing sort of throws it for me as well. This is probably one of those instances that magic is hard to perform for a camera. Just my .02 worth, hope no offense is generated.